This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

the USA thread -

Discussion in 'Dark Tranquillity' started by La Rocque, May 11, 2007.

  1. Lina

    Lina kickass elizabethan style

    Joined:
    May 2, 2001
    Messages:
    11,123
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Maryland, U.S.
    Simply judging her based on how she handles her marriage seems sexist in that subconscious, pernicious way (I can't think of any male candidate whose marriage has been scrutinized), but then to somehow blame the victim of an affair for her response to it and to assume she must have dubious intentions is an example of the absurd double standard powerful females are held to: She can't be too strong because then she's a bitch -- and, in this case, a power-hungry, self-interested bitch -- but she also can't have moments of weakness because then she's too "emotional" (and other such negative traits still attached to females) to serve.

    And, for the record, this is coming from someone who can't stand feminazis, or anyone who enjoys playing the victim for that matter.

    You say your opinion is shaped by being exposed to affairs. (I have plenty of my own experience in that regard, both with couples who should've broken up as a result and with couples who worked through it and stayed together happily for the same reasons that Hillary described. But that's for another thread.) OK, so you personally don't think you would tolerate being cheated on, and you find it hard to respect people who do tolerate it. Fine. But then you make a giant leap to assume it was for her own political gain. And it's not just you who makes that argument; Fox News pundits and those other sacks of shit like Chris Matthews repeat it over and over as if it were fact.

    Also, analyzing how much they love each other by, if not kissing, what?, their body language? (do they stand disproportionately farther apart from each other than the other candidate couples? um, i don't think so? wtf is going on here?) during public, professional events seems absolutely bizarre.

    And as for her "using him" to campaign for her, what other candidate's spouse isn't out there on the campaign trail? The Republican candidates never miss an opportunity to extol their constituents' favorite traits in their wives: beauty, charm, reticence, child-rearing abilities, etc. Obama self-effacingly (in a totally calculated, affected way) admits to Michelle scolding him or correcting him or advising him. John Edwards' wife is fucking DYING OF CANCER, yet he dragged her out on the campaign trail with him, rather than quietly spending her last few months alive with his family, but no one seems to malign his character for it. (Eh, I just reread that part of your post, and you weren't actually arguing against Bill campaigning with her, so nevermind I guess. But I'm going to leave this paragraph, because it's still important I think.)

    Just so you know, I think we probably have more similar stances than I have with several other people here, so I don't have any particular bone to pick with you. I just think this is an interesting conversation. :)
     
  2. DisplayofCharacter

    DisplayofCharacter Are You Scared Enough?

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Northern New Jersey (at Uni)
    Ok, I think I understand what you're saying as far as sexism is concerned. You are right, I don't think any male president (except maybe, maybe JFK, as he did have his affairs but they were swept under the rug - alleged affairs, I should say EDIT: and Bill, obviously) has had a marriage become an extreme focal point, and certainly no candidate in this election. It does lend itself to a double-standard, though I don’t think that was how I regarded the situation. Good point nevertheless.

    As far as blaming Hillary, you put that really well. I never thought of myself as blaming her for her actions and in essence I suppose that's what it is. I don't consider her to be a bitch (she is a little stiff though, just a little) or any more power hungry than any other candidate (although Ron Paul may be more power hungry :p).

    I guess the irony is that I am sympathetic to her emotional side, and resentful towards her political side. I think that also influences my opinion, because I think that she would be strong enough to do this presidential run on her own, even without the backing of Bill. I think everything else (involving my previously stated opinion pertaining to this topic) extends from there. Essentially I’m saying that her actions look hollow to me because it looked to me like she suspended her feelings and continued the relationship, and in turn is politically in a better place now than she would be if she were alone. That in turn, coupled with her demeanor (see below), influenced me. That's not to say I expected her to baw and scream and curse, in short, raise hell over it. That would have looked bad on the opposite end of the spectrum. Of course, I have no way of determining her feelings or knowing what definitely happened etc. etc. I think this lends itself to the double-standard you mentioned.

    I think she’s done a great job of not being a “sympathy whore” (I’m tired and I couldn’t think of a more apt description). I don’t think she uses victimization at all, as a political tactic, and I respect that.

    That’s true, it is a large leap of faith to assume that she maintained the relationship for solely political gain (and the more I think about it, the bigger stretch is seems). I could never determine that. Conversely, I don’t think I could believe politics played no part in the decision either. From a personal perspective between Bill and Hillary, as you already pointed out, they definitely have politics in common.

    I’m not a pundit. :p Nor am I a conservative, though I realize this particular stance is that of a conservative nature.

    What I was going to bring up regarding the Clinton’s PDA you already did in a subsequent paragraph. Obama and Edwards talk a lot about their spouse from a less informal perspective. That’s definitely a sympathy ploy for Obama/Edwards/Republicans, but Hillary tends to refrain from that (to my knowledge). I see it as a double-edged sword. On one side, she looks more professional and self-confident. On the other, she can appear cold and disinterested. Just my opinion :p No, I haven't analyzed how far apart they stand from each other, or how often Obama kisses his wife, or if Edwards or McCain or whomever holds his wife's hands when they walk together. (I did laugh, however). I think I was regarding it from a more textual standpoint.

    The only thing I was going to say in regards to other candidates using their spouse is simply that Hillary has a distinct advantage in that her husband was a former (and generally liked) president. I say good on her for employing him effectively. My only complaint in that regard was the “mini-feud” between Obama and Bill. I think the media blew that up a bit, but it looked unprofessional (on both sides) to me.

    I would also like to mention that while I can't say Hillary's circumstance doesn't influence my opinion of her at all (because it undoubtedly does), her political stances and platform mean much more to me than my personal feelings regarding her personality and situation.

    I think this is a great conversation, definitely one of the best political ones I’ve had in a long time. I’m enjoying it.
     
  3. Siren

    Siren Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Messages:
    9,341
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And of course we all know that people always speak the truth in interviews. :)
     
  4. rahvin

    rahvin keeper of the flame

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    17,576
    Likes Received:
    245
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    safe but not far from the city
    It seems easier to believe that they remained together for reasons that have more to do with politics and money than personal involvement. Then again, as far as I see this is a matter of importance in the USA only, and by that I don't mean specifically concerning Hillary but in general. Groups and even most individuals in Europe would rarely base their vote on a matter of who slept with whom and how everyone else felt. Sure, such "facts" would still fill the pages of many disreputable publications, but they wouldn't influence the voters that much. This is not a way to imply we are more rational or less prone to being influenced, but it's always - by and large - a mixture of reasons involving small-scale economy and the mirage of some elusive civil freedom that does the trick to get elected in Europe. Sometimes the calculations are just plain wrong - in Italy probably more often than in other countries - and the result is not what the voters were expecting, so you end up with lots of people not having voted in their own best interested due to ignorance, or being seduced by some sweet-talking populist.

    I know this doesn't strictly concern the USA, but I wanted to draw a comparison to explain why the whole debate concerning Hillary's reaction to infidelity sounds alien to my ears: it never occurred to me to dislike her for this reason.
     
  5. Lina

    Lina kickass elizabethan style

    Joined:
    May 2, 2001
    Messages:
    11,123
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Maryland, U.S.
    Unfortunately, these are the only issues the media presents and "debates," so they become the deciding factors for many voters.

    And btw, what's the latest over there?
     
  6. QRV

    QRV historyphobic

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I don't have a pick, really. They're all basically the same thing to me, with mere differences in tint. I doubt any of them would do more than the other, specially when facing what might become the worst economic meltdown in history.

    I'm fatalistic as fuck right now.
     
  7. DisplayofCharacter

    DisplayofCharacter Are You Scared Enough?

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Northern New Jersey (at Uni)
    I guess you're mad the asteroid didn't impact Earth yesterday?
     
  8. QRV

    QRV historyphobic

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Well, at least it would have been something new. When did the last one strike? 60 million years ago?
     
  9. La Rocque

    La Rocque I am that I am

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,805
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    an exit to eternal summer slacking
    Microsoft + Yahoo + $44,600,000,000 = ???
     
  10. DisplayofCharacter

    DisplayofCharacter Are You Scared Enough?

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Northern New Jersey (at Uni)
    Too long of a time to say the least. This past meteor (the Feb. 1st one) was only 15 meters wide. Obviously it would mess up a few buildings and maybe kill some people depending on where it landed, but its not an apocalyptic event.

    @the rock: Apparently so. Now AOL is screwed to. Bahahahahaha. Maybe it'll improve microsoft. Bahahahahahaha.
     
  11. QRV

    QRV historyphobic

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    @DC: No worries. A better apocalyptic event is coming with the melting of the polar ice cap, which according to Al Gore, might come to be only 5 years from now.
     
  12. DisplayofCharacter

    DisplayofCharacter Are You Scared Enough?

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Northern New Jersey (at Uni)
    Awesome. Imagine the trouble I'll have explaining to my (eventual) children what "cold" is. At least I can watch "Waterworld" as a reference, and start bottling dirt now to get a head start.
     
  13. QRV

    QRV historyphobic

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Actually, it'd be the other way around. You'll have to explain them what "hot" is. If the ice cap melts away completely, the continental ocean current will stop, and no warmth will come to the north hemisphere from the ocean. The Earth will try to compensate, and what follows is the next ice age.

    Man, I'm worried.
     
  14. DisplayofCharacter

    DisplayofCharacter Are You Scared Enough?

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Northern New Jersey (at Uni)
    That's fine too. Cold is kvlt anyway, and I have northern European heritage, so it'll be like going home.

    On a serious note though, the last interview I read that involved Al Gore, he said it wasn't to late - yet. This was a month or two ago, but he was surprisingly optimistic (it was a little bit after he won his Nobel prize, so sometime in mid-late December). Plus, aren't we overdue for an ice age anyway :p. Just kidding, it is some worrisome shit. Goes to show not to fuck with mother nature, or upset the balance of homeostasis.
     
  15. rahvin

    rahvin keeper of the flame

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    17,576
    Likes Received:
    245
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    safe but not far from the city
    I'm not sure I can make heads or tails of what's happening around here. To be honest, I'd say not much of what is going on is important. For instance, I'll probably end up voting for the exact same party I favored last time. And this is not because of some undying devotion, just out of mild indifference towards the current predicament.
     
  16. Salamurhaaja

    Salamurhaaja Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    3,139
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Microsoft + Yahoo + $44,600,000,000 = stupid investment for MS, that
    despite rumors is never happening.
     
  17. Siren

    Siren Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Messages:
    9,341
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Man, i hate cold! :(

    edit: Good thing i didn't give away my heavy jacket.
     
  18. Salamurhaaja

    Salamurhaaja Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    3,139
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The NY Giants are WORLD champions.

    Fuck the americans are arrogant, if you only have teams from the US in your
    NATIONAL Football League, then how is it that the winners of Superbowl are
    WORLD champions.

    Arrogant pricks, America is NOT the fucking world.
     
  19. QRV

    QRV historyphobic

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Has the american football team ever been defeated, I mean like, in a world cup or something? Is there even a world cup for that sport?

    Anyway, I've always wondered what the hell's up with naming that sport "football", and then naming the real football "soccer". Merriam-Webster says about the etimology of "soccer": by shortening & alteration from association football. Considering that the game was created as early as the mid-19th century, that's just... weird.
     
  20. DisplayofCharacter

    DisplayofCharacter Are You Scared Enough?

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Northern New Jersey (at Uni)
    @Sal: Calm down. They're world champions by technicality: there are no other leagues in the world, on a professional level, besides what's basically a minor league in Canada (CFL). There was another minor league setup in Europe (NFL Europe) that was recently disbanded. Its not American arrogance, its technical truth until another professional league surfaces.

    It isn't like hockey, or real football (trying not to use the term soccer).

    There is no world cup for american football, it exists solely in the USA (see above). The closest sport is Rugby or Australian Rules Football, and likely the best USA team would loose to the best Rugby team. However, a Rugby team or Australian Rules Football team would likely lose in an american football game - the rules and equipment are very different, the body types are different, everything is too disparate to make but a loose comparison.

    I understood the word soccer to be an american invention, but I never looked up the etymology. It doesn't make sense to me in any other connotation. Besides, the US (non-american, soccer, whatever) football team sucks. The best we ever did was quarterfinals in the world cup. I have more fun rooting for Germany or England.
     

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Our music community has been around for almost 15 years and we pride ourselves on offering great metal music discussion, as well as music production and other closely related topics. We work hard every day to make sure our community is one of the best. Enjoy!
  • Like us on Facebook

  • Donate ♥

    We have worked hard for 15 years (and running) to make sure our Metal community is running fast, uses the best software, and isn't overloaded with advertising. If you love the forum as much as we love bringing it to you, please show your support with a generous donation. We really appreciate it!